Public Transportation Service Quality Evaluation during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Amman City Using Integrated Approach Fuzzy AHP-Kendall Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Main Characteristics of Fuzzy AHP
2.2. Kendall Concordance Characteristics
3. Results
3.1. Case Study
3.2. Result
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Moslem, S.; Campisi, T.; Szmelter-Jarosz, A.; Duleba, S.; Nahiduzzaman, K.; Tesoriere, G. Best–Worst Method for Modelling Mobility Choice after COVID-19: Evidence from Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duleba, S.; Mishina, T.; Shimazaki, Y. A dynamic analysis on public bus transport’s supply quality by using ahp. Transport 2012, 27, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, S.-H. Landscape Assessment for Stream Regulation Works in a Watershed Using the Analytic Network Process (ANP). Sustainability 2019, 11, 1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 2015, 53, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasheed, R.; Javed, H.; Rizwan, A.; Yasar, A.; Tabinda, A.B.; Mahfooz, Y.; Wang, Y.; Su, Y. Sustainability and CDM potential analysis of a novel vs conventional bioenergy projects in South Asia by multi-criteria decision-making method. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 23081–23093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustajoki, J.; Hamalainen, R.P.; Salo, A. Decision Support by Interval SMART/SWING-Incorporating Imprecision in the SMART and SWING Methods. Decis. Sci. 2005, 36, 317–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, M.; Rezaei, J. Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model. Omega 2020, 96, 102075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boujelbene, Y.; Derbel, A. The Performance Analysis of Public Transport Operators in Tunisia Using AHP Method. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 73, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alkharabsheh, A.; Moslem, S.; Duleba, S. Evaluating Passenger Demand for Development of the Urban Transport System by an AHP Model with the Real-World Application of Amman. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nassereddine, M.; Eskandari, H. An integrated MCDM approach to evaluate public transportation systems in Tehran. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 106, 427–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oubahman, L.; Duleba, S. Review of Promethee method in transportation. Prod. Eng. Arch. 2021, 27, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duleba, S. An ahp-ism approach for considering public preferences in a public transport development decision. Transport 2019, 34, 662–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salais-Fierro, T.E.; Saucedo-Martinez, J.A.; Rodriguez-Aguilar, R.; Vela-Haro, J.M. Demand Prediction Using a Soft-Computing Approach: A Case Study of Automotive Industry. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duleba, S.; Moslem, S. Examining Pareto optimality in analytic hierarchy process on real Data: An application in public transport service development. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 116, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Li, X.; Liu, W.; Li, B.; Zhang, Z. An application of the AHP in 3PL vendor selection of a 4PL system. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37583), The Hague, The Netherlands, 10–13 October 2005; Volume 2, pp. 1255–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkharabsheh, A.; Moslem, S.; Oubahman, L.; Duleba, S. An Integrated Approach of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Grey Theory for Evaluating Urban Public Transportation Systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moslem, S.; Farooq, D.; Ghorbanzadeh, O.; Blaschke, T. Application of the AHP-BWM Model for Evaluating Driver Behavior Factors Related to Road Safety: A Case Study for Budapest. Symmetry 2020, 12, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Obaid, M.; Torok, A.; Ortega, J. A Comprehensive Emissions Model Combining Autonomous Vehicles with Park and Ride and Electric Vehicle Transportation Policies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obaid, M.; Torok, A. Macroscopic Traffic Simulation of Autonomous Vehicle Effects. Vehicles 2021, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S. Using AHP and Dempster–Shafer theory for evaluating sustainable transport solutions. Environ. Model. Softw. 2011, 26, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S.; Omrani, H. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 12270–12280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Atawi, A.M.; Kumar, R.; Saleh, W. Transportation sustainability index for tabuk city in saudi arabia: An analytic hierarchy process. Transport 2015, 31, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chou, C.-C.; Ding, J.-F. Application of an Integrated Model with MCDM and IPA to Evaluate the Service Quality of Transshipment port. Math. Probl. Eng. 2013, 2013, 656757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chien-Chang, C. Evaluating the quality of airport service using the fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method: A case study of Taiwanese airports. Expert Syst. 2011, 29, 246–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNHCR. UN Fact Sheet. 2012. Available online: https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/UNHCRJordanFactSheet-November2019_0.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Amerian Public Transportation Association. Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment. 2014. Available online: https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/Economic-Impact-Public-Transportation-Investment-APTA.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Le-Klähn, D.-T.; Hall, C.M. Tourist use of public transport at destinations—A review. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 18, 785–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Masaeid, H.R. Traffic accidents in Jordan. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 2009, 3, 331–343. [Google Scholar]
- Shtayat, A.; Abu Alfoul, M.; Moridpour, S.; Al-Hurr, N.; Magableh, K.; Harahsheh, I. Waiting Time of Public Transport Passengers in Jordan: Magnitude and Cost. Open Transp. J. 2019, 13, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smadi, A.; Management, T.; Municipality, G.A. Training on SUMP: Feedback from Jordan. Brest. 2013. Available online: https://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Jordan-AymanSamdi.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Moslem, S.; Alkharabsheh, A.; Ismael, K.; Duleba, S. An Integrated Decision Support Model for Evaluating Public Transport Quality. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooq, D.; Moslem, S.; Tufail, R.F.; Ghorbanzadeh, O.; Duleba, S.; Maqsoom, A.; Blaschke, T. Analyzing the Importance of Driver Behavior Criteria Related to Road Safety for Different Driving Cultures. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mardani, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Khalifah, Z.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in transportation systems: A systematic review of the state of the art literature. Transport 2015, 31, 359–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, C.-C. A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 7745–7754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gumus, A.T. Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 4067–4074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, T.-Y.; Lu, S.-T.; Tzeng, G.-H. Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2004, 22, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977, 15, 234–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendall, M.G.; Smith, B.B. The Problem of $m$ Rankings. Ann. Math. Stat. 1939, 10, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gronau, W.; Kagermeier, A. Key factors for successful leisure and tourism public transport provision. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, P.; Wang, W.; Wei, C. Economic and Environmental Effects of Public Transport Subsidy Policies: A Spatial CGE Model of Beijing. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 3843281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
F.N. | Linguistic Scale | F.N. Scale |
---|---|---|
9 | Perfect | (8, 9, 10) |
8 | Absolute | (7, 8, 9) |
7 | Very good | (6, 7, 8) |
6 | Fairly good | (5, 6, 7) |
5 | Good | (4, 5, 6) |
4 | Preferable | (3, 4, 5) |
3 | Not bad | (2, 3, 4) |
2 | Weakly Important | (1, 2, 3) |
1 | Equally Important | (1, 1, 1) |
W | Interpretation |
---|---|
0 | No agreement |
0.10 | Weak agreement |
0.30 | Moderate agreement |
0.60 | Strong agreement |
1 | Perfect agreement |
Criteria | Passengers Final Weight | Passengers Rank | Non-Passengers Final Weight | Non-Passengers Rank | Municipal Officials Final Weight | Municipal Officials Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Approachability | 0.0628 | 5 | 0.0775 | 5 | 0.0628 | 5 |
Directness | 0.0980 | 4 | 0.1032 | 4 | 0.0980 | 4 |
Time availability | 0.3102 | 2 | 0.3624 | 1 | 0.3102 | 2 |
Speed | 0.3661 | 1 | 0.2976 | 2 | 0.3661 | 1 |
Reliability | 0.1629 | 3 | 0.1593 | 3 | 0.1629 | 3 |
Criteria | Passengers Final Weight | Passengers Rank | Non-Passengers Final Weight | Non-Passengers Rank | Municipal Officials Final Weight | Municipal Officials Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Distance to stop | 0.0315 | 8 | 0.0377 | 8 | 0.0261 | 8 |
Safety of Stops | 0.0183 | 9 | 0.0228 | 9 | 0.0175 | 9 |
Comfort of stops | 0.0130 | 10 | 0.0170 | 10 | 0.0192 | 10 |
Journey time | 0.1831 | 1 | 0.1473 | 3 | 0.1431 | 2 |
Awaiting time | 0.0631 | 5 | 0.0471 | 6 | 0.1086 | 5 |
Time to reach stops | 0.1199 | 4 | 0.1033 | 4 | 0.1145 | 3 |
Need for transfer | 0.0595 | 6 | 0.0632 | 5 | 0.0581 | 6 |
Fit connection | 0.0385 | 7 | 0.0400 | 7 | 0.0399 | 7 |
Frequency of lines | 0.1786 | 2 | 0.2039 | 1 | 0.1145 | 4 |
Limited time of use | 0.1316 | 3 | 0.1585 | 2 | 0.1958 | 1 |
Criteria | Rank of Passenger Side | Rank of Non-Passenger | Rank of Municipal Official’s | Ri | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Approachability | 5 | 5 | 5 | 15 | 36 |
Directness | 4 | 4 | 4 | 12 | 9 |
Time availability | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 16 |
Speed | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 25 |
Reliability | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 |
N = 5 | M = 3 | S = 86 | R = 9 | W = 0.956 |
Criteria | Rank of Passenger Side | Rank of Non-Passenger | Rank of Municipal Official’s | Ri | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Distance to stop | 8 | 8 | 8 | 24 | 5.06 |
Comfort of Stops | 10 | 10 | 10 | 30 | |
Safety of Stops | 9 | 9 | 9 | 27 | 27.56 |
Need for transfer | 6 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 22.56 |
Fit connection | 7 | 7 | 7 | 21 | 0.5625 |
Frequency of lines | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 217.56 |
Limited time of use | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 248.06 |
Journey time | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 248.06 |
Awaiting time | 5 | 6 | 6 | 14 | 33.06 |
Time to reach stops | 4 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 115.56 |
N = 10 | M = 3 | S = 710.5 | R = 21.75 | W = 0.9569 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alkharabsheh, A.; Duleba, S. Public Transportation Service Quality Evaluation during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Amman City Using Integrated Approach Fuzzy AHP-Kendall Model. Vehicles 2021, 3, 330-340. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/vehicles3030020
Alkharabsheh A, Duleba S. Public Transportation Service Quality Evaluation during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Amman City Using Integrated Approach Fuzzy AHP-Kendall Model. Vehicles. 2021; 3(3):330-340. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/vehicles3030020
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlkharabsheh, Ahmad, and Szabolcs Duleba. 2021. "Public Transportation Service Quality Evaluation during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Amman City Using Integrated Approach Fuzzy AHP-Kendall Model" Vehicles 3, no. 3: 330-340. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/vehicles3030020